I made lemonade this morning.

In article , Alfred Molon wrote:

Sandman:
Rule of thumb - if there are buildings, especially tall ones, in
the image, level vertically on them.

Depends on how far away those buildings are. If close, the vertical
lines would be angled.

Then you level on the center one.

Well, I suppose there's limit to that rule as well.

http://good-wallpapers.com/places/18355

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman says...
Rule of thumb - if there are buildings, especially tall ones, in the
image, level vertically on them.

Depends on how far away those buildings are. If close, the vertical
lines would be angled.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2014-09-07 17:40:54 +0000, rickman said:

On 9/7/2014 5:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-07 08:44:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On 7 Sep 2014 07:56:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2014090614364197386-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-06 21:14:23 +0000, Bartolomeo said:

Bartolomeo:
W dniu 2014-09-06 22:35, Savageduck pisze:

Savageduck:
and at 05:38 AM in not such good light. https://db.tt/SJcx95S9

...and a B&W version with a slight blue tone.
https://db.tt/Q9nO76XN

Bartolomeo:
Just lurking here but have persisting impression that all
buildings fall to the right.

You might note that the shoreline is level, and the buildings are
vertical. Just because the Vancouver city planers located shorter
buildings to the right, doesn't actually mean they are falling to
the right.

Check for yourself, the verticals are vertical, and the horizon is
level;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_889.jpg

It's easy to hide a lean when not zoomed in, where a 1 pixel line easily
covers several pixels of image data.

Here you can see that it's leaning:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5xzc1jjvn87gos/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.53.29.png?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfafzs534ck60cr/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.55.54.png?dl=0


Not

by

much, of course, but your eye and mind sees it.

Yep, and I reckon the problems stems from using the perceived
waterline as a horizon to level it. The view point is above the level
of the horizon and the waterline is at a considerably varying distance
from the camera. Setting it up on the building verticals in the middle
of the image would have been more accurate.

OK!
This time I ignore the waterline and just checked verticals across the
the buildings.

So here I believe I have the verticals perpendicular;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_891.jpg

To reach this final result, which, I hope doesn't ruin too many senses
of balance.
https://db.tt/W0AhG2cl

Much better, but I still feel they are leaning to the right. I think
I've developed a bias by looking at the other images too long. I need
a left leaning image to even things out.

But nice picture regardless of the political views.

Just for you, ...there is always one in the crowd. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/VA_028-Edit3L.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 02:29:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-07 08:44:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On 7 Sep 2014 07:56:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2014090614364197386-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-06 21:14:23 +0000, Bartolomeo said:

Bartolomeo:
W dniu 2014-09-06 22:35, Savageduck pisze:

Savageduck:
and at 05:38 AM in not such good light. https://db.tt/SJcx95S9

...and a B&W version with a slight blue tone.
https://db.tt/Q9nO76XN

Bartolomeo:
Just lurking here but have persisting impression that all
buildings fall to the right.

You might note that the shoreline is level, and the buildings are
vertical. Just because the Vancouver city planers located shorter
buildings to the right, doesn't actually mean they are falling to
the right.

Check for yourself, the verticals are vertical, and the horizon is
level;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_889.jpg

It's easy to hide a lean when not zoomed in, where a 1 pixel line easily
covers several pixels of image data.

Here you can see that it's leaning:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5xzc1jjvn87gos/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.53.29.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfafzs534ck60cr/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.55.54.png?dl=0

Not

by much, of course, but your eye and mind sees it.

Yep, and I reckon the problems stems from using the perceived
waterline as a horizon to level it. The view point is above the level
of the horizon and the waterline is at a considerably varying distance
from the camera. Setting it up on the building verticals in the middle
of the image would have been more accurate.

OK!
This time I ignore the waterline and just checked verticals across the
the buildings.

So here I believe I have the verticals perpendicular;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_891.jpg

To reach this final result, which, I hope doesn't ruin too many senses
of balance.
https://db.tt/W0AhG2cl

That looks better. Now you will tell me you haven't changed it. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 12:25:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-07 17:40:54 +0000, rickman said:

On 9/7/2014 5:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-07 08:44:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On 7 Sep 2014 07:56:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2014090614364197386-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-06 21:14:23 +0000, Bartolomeo said:

Bartolomeo:
W dniu 2014-09-06 22:35, Savageduck pisze:

Savageduck:
and at 05:38 AM in not such good light. https://db.tt/SJcx95S9

...and a B&W version with a slight blue tone.
https://db.tt/Q9nO76XN

Bartolomeo:
Just lurking here but have persisting impression that all
buildings fall to the right.

You might note that the shoreline is level, and the buildings are
vertical. Just because the Vancouver city planers located shorter
buildings to the right, doesn't actually mean they are falling to
the right.

Check for yourself, the verticals are vertical, and the horizon is
level;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_889.jpg

It's easy to hide a lean when not zoomed in, where a 1 pixel line easily
covers several pixels of image data.

Here you can see that it's leaning:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5xzc1jjvn87gos/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.53.29.png?dl=0


https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfafzs534ck60cr/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.55.54.png?dl=0


Not

by

much, of course, but your eye and mind sees it.

Yep, and I reckon the problems stems from using the perceived
waterline as a horizon to level it. The view point is above the level
of the horizon and the waterline is at a considerably varying distance
from the camera. Setting it up on the building verticals in the middle
of the image would have been more accurate.

OK!
This time I ignore the waterline and just checked verticals across the
the buildings.

So here I believe I have the verticals perpendicular;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_891.jpg

To reach this final result, which, I hope doesn't ruin too many senses
of balance.
https://db.tt/W0AhG2cl

Much better, but I still feel they are leaning to the right. I think
I've developed a bias by looking at the other images too long. I need
a left leaning image to even things out.

But nice picture regardless of the political views.

Just for you, ...there is always one in the crowd. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/VA_028-Edit3L.jpg

We had some like that in Christchurch.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-09-08 00:42:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 02:29:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-07 08:44:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On 7 Sep 2014 07:56:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2014090614364197386-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-06 21:14:23 +0000, Bartolomeo said:

Bartolomeo:
W dniu 2014-09-06 22:35, Savageduck pisze:

Savageduck:
and at 05:38 AM in not such good light. https://db.tt/SJcx95S9

...and a B&W version with a slight blue tone.
https://db.tt/Q9nO76XN

Bartolomeo:
Just lurking here but have persisting impression that all
buildings fall to the right.

You might note that the shoreline is level, and the buildings are
vertical. Just because the Vancouver city planers located shorter
buildings to the right, doesn't actually mean they are falling to
the right.

Check for yourself, the verticals are vertical, and the horizon is
level;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_889.jpg

It's easy to hide a lean when not zoomed in, where a 1 pixel line easily
covers several pixels of image data.

Here you can see that it's leaning:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5xzc1jjvn87gos/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.53.29.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfafzs534ck60cr/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.55.54.png?dl=0

Not

by

much, of course, but your eye and mind sees it.

Yep, and I reckon the problems stems from using the perceived
waterline as a horizon to level it. The view point is above the level
of the horizon and the waterline is at a considerably varying distance
from the camera. Setting it up on the building verticals in the middle
of the image would have been more accurate.

OK!
This time I ignore the waterline and just checked verticals across the
the buildings.

So here I believe I have the verticals perpendicular;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_891.jpg

To reach this final result, which, I hope doesn't ruin too many senses
of balance.
https://db.tt/W0AhG2cl

That looks better. Now you will tell me you haven't changed it. :-)

Damn! You noticed. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-09-08 00:45:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 7 Sep 2014 12:25:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-07 17:40:54 +0000, rickman said:

On 9/7/2014 5:29 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-07 08:44:33 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On 7 Sep 2014 07:56:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article 2014090614364197386-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-09-06 21:14:23 +0000, Bartolomeo said:

Bartolomeo:
W dniu 2014-09-06 22:35, Savageduck pisze:

Savageduck:
and at 05:38 AM in not such good light. https://db.tt/SJcx95S9

...and a B&W version with a slight blue tone.
https://db.tt/Q9nO76XN

Bartolomeo:
Just lurking here but have persisting impression that all
buildings fall to the right.

You might note that the shoreline is level, and the buildings are
vertical. Just because the Vancouver city planers located shorter
buildings to the right, doesn't actually mean they are falling to
the right.

Check for yourself, the verticals are vertical, and the horizon is
level;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_889.jpg

It's easy to hide a lean when not zoomed in, where a 1 pixel line easily
covers several pixels of image data.

Here you can see that it's leaning:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5xzc1jjvn87gos/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.53.29.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfafzs534ck60cr/Screenshot%202014-09-07%2009.55.54.png?dl=0


Not

by much, of course, but your eye and mind sees it.

Yep, and I reckon the problems stems from using the perceived
waterline as a horizon to level it. The view point is above the level
of the horizon and the waterline is at a considerably varying distance
from the camera. Setting it up on the building verticals in the middle
of the image would have been more accurate.

OK!
This time I ignore the waterline and just checked verticals across the
the buildings.

So here I believe I have the verticals perpendicular;
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_891.jpg

To reach this final result, which, I hope doesn't ruin too many senses
of balance.
https://db.tt/W0AhG2cl

Much better, but I still feel they are leaning to the right. I think
I've developed a bias by looking at the other images too long. I need
a left leaning image to even things out.

But nice picture regardless of the political views.

Just for you, ...there is always one in the crowd. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/VA_028-Edit3L.jpg

We had some like that in Christchurch.

A little lean to the left or right adds a little character to the urban
setting.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/7/2014 3:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

I wanted to catch the sunrise this morning. A moderate fog came in,
so I took fog images. As usual all constructive comments are welcome

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dumbo%20at%20dawn_6447.jpg

For the pixel peepers, The image ws not sharpened and all
adjustments were made in ACR & PS.

Why such low res? I'd much prefer to see the full res image. It looks to be
quite a good image.


Sorry. Any image I may have furthr use for will be shown only in low
res, for obvious reasons.

--
PeterN

On 9/6/2014 11:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-07 03:43:32 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2014-09-07 02:43:15 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/6/2014 3:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-06 18:26:54 +0000, PeterN
said:

I wanted to catch the sunrise this morning. A moderate fog came in, so
I took fog images.
As usual all constructive comments are welcome

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dumbo%20at%20dawn_6447.jpg


For the pixel peepers, The image ws not sharpened and all adjustments
were made in ACR & PS.

It looks like a nice enough image composition & subject-wise, but why
can't you post a decent sized version?
372x750 isn't exactly large enough to appreciate.
Try something such as 900x1814. Then tell us what you actually did when
taking the shot, and what you did in post.

You might not have applied any sharpening, but there is a whole
bunch of
other stuff I see which makes sharpening the least of the issues I have
with that image. It looks another of those great opportunity shots lost
due to questionable preparation.

I have a few questions:
Did you use a tripod?


Yes

Good!

Why did you choose the exposure settings you did, 1/30 @ f/16 & ISO 50,
when you had an f/4 lens and you D800?


30 sec. Not 1/30. At i/30 you would have seen the current ripping.

OK! I misread that. Were you using an ND filter?

Yes a Heliopan variable. I can't say what density because I just went to
the most dense, and then backed off until I hit 30 sec exposure.



What did you actually do in post?
There seems to be some sort of attempt at duotone which doesn't really
work that well. There is also, what looks like a bunch of camera shake
and some CA &/or fringing (Hand held at 1/30 & ISO 50 will do that).

In post I did some cropping, removal of a lamp post, a bit of
warming; and lens correction in ACR.

I have no issue with the composition, cropping, lens correction, and
removal of intrusive lamp posts.
When it comes toThere is still something odd about several areas in
the image which I find distracting.

That was meant to read: When it comes to a bit of warming, there is
still something odd about several areas in the image which I find
distracting.

After looking at it, I see what you mean.

I suspect I was only seeing that both sets of pilings provided a leading
line to the Freedom Tower, which was not inbtentional. We had some
discussion about going back at night, but too be candid I have an
emotional problem with shooting at or near the WTC. I went to that area
a few years ago, and just sat down. I was unable to take any photos.





The most noticeable is a pinkish color cast which tints some
buildings, some parts of the sky, and the greenery on the right. The
greenery on the right has another problem, if you want it identifiable
as "green" showing through fog. It doesn't, it just looks murky and
contaminated with that pink.
I know you were out Sunrise hunting, and with the location of that
shot (somewhere over in Brooklyn I am guessing) you probably had the
Sun behind you. The pink color cast does not look like the Sun was
responsible, certainly not a "Golden Hour" look.

Next; was it your intent to have what looks like some sort of toned B&W?
...or were you after a moody color rendition?
My big problem is it looks like neither.


Agreed.
I did not notice any camera shake, but will look ore closely
tomorrow. Just go home from a long dinner. There may be some fringing.

Take a look at the pilings. It might not be camera shake, but there
are possible OoF issues which have nothing to do with the fog. That is
where what looks like fringing is most conspicuous.

Time to cough up the NEF.

Manyana.




--
PeterN

On 9/8/14 PDT, 2:27 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/7/2014 3:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

I wanted to catch the sunrise this morning. A moderate fog came in,
so I took fog images. As usual all constructive comments are welcome

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/dumbo%20at%20dawn_6447.jpg


For the pixel peepers, The image ws not sharpened and all
adjustments were made in ACR & PS.

Why such low res? I'd much prefer to see the full res image. It looks
to be
quite a good image.


Sorry. Any image I may have furthr use for will be shown only in low
res, for obvious reasons.

Lo rez, fine, but at least make it fill a browser page. Or put a
watermark on it. Are your images that sought after??